[ad_1]
The Affordable Care Act – and the multitude of regulations, taxes, and benefits that accompany it – could again be referred to the Supreme Court after a Texas judge declared the law unconstitutional.
The surprise decision Friday already The two sides of the debate are well placed, Democrats claiming that the judgment is just a hiccup and Republicans suggesting that this could be their chance, finally, to abolish the law – which remains largely in place despite President Trump's contrary assertions in the past. A Supreme Court ruling in their favor would be the only way for Republicans to overturn the law in the foreseeable future, with Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives in January.
Councilor Stephen Miller boldly predicted that the law would be "invalidated" in this way.
"I think this is the most likely outcome, because ObamaCare has always been unconstitutional," he said.
If the court were to override the law, it would leave the Trump government and the Congress divided in a remarkably difficult situation – struggling to come up with a solution that has escaped detractors in Washington since its adoption in 2010.
In collaboration with the Democrats, you have a chance to create great health care! ", said Trump.
But if the last lawsuit against ObamaCare ends up in the Supreme Court, the result is far from certain. All eyes are on Brett Kavanaugh, the last confirmed judge of Trump, whose opinions on the health care law were the subject of bitter debate on the right.Kavanaugh disagreed with the decision, but acknowledged that the "individual mandate provision" of the Affordable Care Act could "fit comfortably into the power of the congressional tax clause".
Roberts sided with the Liberal side of the court in deciding that the government could actually charge for the purchase of Medicare – by virtue of its power of taxation.
Be that as it may, even if the judge appointed by Kavanaugh and Trump if Gorsuch were to join the rest of the conservative wing against the law, Roberts would need to constitute a majority. [19659003WhereRobertsmightfallitmaybeguessedasthecaseofthelowercourtsproveshisreasoningforthemaintenanceoftheindividualmandateofthelaw
In the opinion of Friday, the judge US District Reed O. Connor said that last year's tax reduction bill had knocked the constitutional foundation of the law by eliminating the penalty of the individual mandate for non-coverage. the law can not be dissociated from this provision and He is therefore invalid, he writes.
Proponents of the law immediately announced that they would appeal. "Today's erroneous decision will not discourage us: our coalition will continue to fight in court for the health and well-being of all Americans," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said. leads a coalition of states defending ACA.
The White House applauded Mr. O. Connor's decision, but stated that the law remained in effect during the course of the appeals.
It is unlikely that Congress will act as long as the case is judged by the courts. Many senior Republican legislators have stated that they have not intended to also remove popular provisions such as the protection of people with pre-existing health conditions, by canceling the fines of the ACA for people who can afford coverage but are not insured.
Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi, who is expected to take over the presidency of the House in January, vowed to fight what she called an "absurd decision". She added that the House "will intervene swiftly in the appeal process to enforce the protections of pre-existing persons and save lives and will reject any attempts by Republicans to destroy the Affordable Care Act."
Sarah, White House Press Secretary Huckabee Sanders said, "We expect this decision to be appealed to the Supreme Court." Pending the appeal process, the law remains in effect . "
This would place Roberts in a potentially delicate position. As a Wall Street Journal editorial noted on Monday, Roberts saved the law in 2012 by describing the warrant penalty as a tax – an item that Congress has the undisputed power to impose. But with this "tax" – or this penalty – removed from next year, Republicans challenging the law in this case have argued that the program was now illegal.
"We admit with some satisfaction that the chief justice is hoisting himself out of the door, his own logic," said the editorial of the review.
But the same editorial noted that the issue is more important than the simple tax issue, while providing that the decision would be overturned on appeal at the end.
"The Affordable Care Act has also been operational since 2014, which means that the so-called addiction interests come into play when they envision a precedent. Millions of people now rely on ObamaCare grants and rules, which argue against the judges' decision to repeal the law, "said the editorial board. "In any case, the doctrine of the Supreme Court on" divisibility "calls for restraint by declaring an entire law illegal simply because part of it is illegal. Our hypothesis is that even the Court Justices of the Fifth Right Circuit will overturn Judge O. Connor on this point.
Alex Pappas of Fox News and the Associated Press contributed to the writing of this report.
Source link
